Even if I left a throttle up a bit it would be obvious and corrected immediately.
Its as obvious at any airplane, be it Beechcraft, Boeing, Airbus, whatever.
I think the new technology is making the pilot the observer of the automation and a monitor otherwise how could it take them 11 seconds to use manual brakes?
No automation? Alright, forget about your FMC and get to your NAT flightlevels manually. Or what do you mean exactly?
Next accident might happen by gross forward input on the controls just before touchdown. I see the accusations against whichever manufacturer that he didn't prevent that, because the plane already "knows" that it was too close to ground (because of radio altitude) and "should have known to land".
@Max Tow:
There
is such thing as an "acceptable accident rate". Airplanes are built to have an incident probability of better than ten to the 9th per FH. Boeings and Airbusses alike, since this is a certification requirement. It does not prevent to improve though.
One more questions: without spoillers and just one reverse, is it possible to stop on a short runway only applying brakes?
According to A320 FCOM it takes about 40% - 50% longer to stop without ground spoilers available.
I understand the FDR has two sensors to record TLA. Has it been verified by the FDR that both these sensors showed the TL above idle?
It was stated, that there was (until now) no evidence of malfunction.
My personal view is that the PF was focusing too much on just one lever that the second one completely disappeared from his mental view, so it did not contribute in his mind to the complete landing maneuver. They even briefed that wrongly according to what I read in the transcript, so I can imagine they might have never looked up that very procedure in the MEL, an error which can only be done when you "think you know". The very stressful situation did not help to analyse the situation calmly. The standard callout of no spoilers could have been a hint (also to break manually), which they overlooked sadly.